UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Parliament

  • Stewart Hosie – 2022 Speech on Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests

    Stewart Hosie – 2022 Speech on Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests

    The speech made by Stewart Hosie, the SNP MP for Dundee East, in the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    When the Government published their policy paper on revisions to the ministerial code on 27 May, it said that there would be “an enhanced process” for the initiation of investigations under the ministerial code, that the independent adviser could initiate his or her own investigations, that there would be a more specific reference to the adviser in the ministerial code, and that there would be a duty on Ministers to provide all the information necessary to allow the adviser to discharge his or her duties. However, it turns out that the Prime Minister is not offering potential candidates any enhanced powers, meaning that advisers will not be able to launch their own investigations, and that confirms the blocking of the expansion of powers by his predecessor. So it is a simple question: why are the Government reneging on their own policy statement of May this year, making it more difficult to appoint an independent adviser?

    Alex Burghart

    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. He seems terribly well informed, but he seems to have stopped short of reading Lord Geidt’s response to the changes in the terms of reference, where he said that

    “this would be a workable scheme”.

  • Alex Burghart – 2022 Speech on Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests

    Alex Burghart – 2022 Speech on Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests

    The speech made by Alex Burghart, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    The Government welcome the opportunity to stress again the importance of the role of the independent adviser and this Government’s commitment to it. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the appointment of a new independent adviser is a priority and that the appointment process is under way. Hon. Members will understand that an appointment of this nature is significant and has to be done well. Much as hon. Members might wish me to, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on specifics of what is an ongoing appointments process. Let me assure hon. Members: the adjudication of issues of ministerial conduct does not stop because the independent adviser is not yet in post. Conduct matters and conduct issues will be dealt with quickly and appropriately, irrespective of that appointment process.

    That is what hon. Members will have seen with regard to complaints made against the Deputy Prime Minister. On receipt of formal complaints by the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister requested that an independent investigation be conducted by an individual from outside Government, and Adam Tolley KC has been appointed to conduct the investigation. The terms of reference have now been published. The process is under way, and Mr Tolley will provide his report to the PM in due course. It is right that these matters are investigated fully, but it would not be right to comment further on them when that process is ongoing.

    I would also like to reassure hon. Members that the process of managing the interests of Ministers continues in the absence of an independent adviser. The permanent secretary, as the policy expert on each Department’s remit, leads the process in their Department in the absence of an independent adviser. The Cabinet Office is able to provide advice in line with precedent. All relevant interests are declared by Ministers upon taking office and are kept up to date at all times. The publication of the list of Ministers’ interests is the end point of the ministerial interests process, and it takes place at regular intervals to make the public aware of the relevant interests of Ministers.

    I will end by reiterating that as soon as there is an update on the process to appoint an independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, the Government will update the House.

  • Angela Rayner – 2022 Speech on Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests

    Angela Rayner – 2022 Speech on Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests

    The speech made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

    How many times have I heard, “Soon; jam tomorrow; mañana, mañana”? We need the Prime Minister, who promised to appoint an independent ethics adviser as one of his first acts, to actually deal with this issue. Yet despite Ministers being accused of bullying and intimidation, or being reappointed despite security breaches, there is still no adviser. It is clear that ethics and integrity are not a priority for the Government, despite the Prime Minister’s words.

    We are told that recruitment is under way, but apparently no one will accept this poisoned chalice. So can the Minister tell us how many candidates have been approached and how many have refused the job? Will the Prime Minister follow his disgraced predecessors by denying the so-called independent adviser the power to launch their own investigations? Or does he have no plan to restore standards? Will he just preserve the rotten regime that he inherited?

    What on earth is the system in the meantime? Who will investigate the allegations of Islamophobia made by one serving Minister against another? The Minister mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister, who had to demand an investigation into himself because the Prime Minister was too weak to do so. How many formal complaints have now been made? The Minister mentions Adam Tolley. Why is he not allowed to proactively investigate the so-called informal complaints? Will he investigate allegations made by the former permanent secretary? And who will finally get to the bottom of the dangerous use of private emails by Ministers?

    No. 10 said in reference to the Home Secretary that it could not investigate breaches under previous Administrations. But that is what is happening now with the Deputy Prime Minister, so why not? Why now is there an excuse for refusing to investigate the Home Secretary’s breach? Will the Prime Minister appoint a truly independent watchdog?

    Alex Burghart

    It is wonderful to hear the right hon. Lady’s interest in this matter today. As it happens, we had a debate on this very issue in Westminster Hall yesterday. The House will be shocked to hear—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I am here, Minister, not over there—and I hate to say it, but there is nobody even standing on that side.

    Alex Burghart

    Thank you for the reminder, Mr Speaker.

    The House will be shocked to hear that the right hon. Lady was not present at that Westminster Hall debate—[Interruption.] Because it was about the ministerial code, which is the subject of the urgent question. The right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends did not bother to show up, and they missed the opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) speak very pertinently on this subject. Not only was the right hon. Lady not there, but her Front-Bench colleagues did not turn up to ask questions, either.

    The right hon. Lady refers to rumours in the press, but let us look at the facts. The Prime Minister has been in office for 31 days. On his first day, he said he would make an appointment. He has made repeated assurances in this place and other places, as have members of the Cabinet, and that has continued in yesterday’s debate, at Prime Minister’s questions and for this urgent question.

    The right hon. Lady talks about the powers of the independent adviser, but I remind her that in May this year, Lord Geidt said that we had come up with “a workable scheme”. I have to say that it is starting to sound very much like the Opposition cannot take yes for an answer. We are going to have an independent adviser who will have the powers they need. They are going to be appointed very soon.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2022 Statement on John Nicolson

    Penny Mordaunt – 2022 Statement on John Nicolson

    The statement made by Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, in the House on 29 November 2022.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for moving the motion. I deeply regret it, but I understand why he has had to do so.

    I heard what the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) said today, and I am glad to see him in the Chamber. I do not think his argument that he was not aware of the right course of action or of the appropriate response to journalistic inquiries, which is to state that any such correspondence is confidential, is a reason for not passing the motion. I sincerely hoped he would make an apology. I think there is consensus across the House about the right course of action. Had he taken that opportunity, the matter could potentially have been brought to an end today.

    The procedure for raising breaches of privilege is a long-standing and important convention that ensures the privileges and rights of this House are protected.

    John Nicolson

    I think there is a misunderstanding. I quite clearly said that I was apologising to Mr Speaker. I was unaware of this convention, and I wished to cause him no hurt. I apologised, and I am repeating that now.

    Penny Mordaunt

    I am afraid that the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased it, and the way in which he has not appreciated—

    Pete Wishart

    Will the Leader of the House give way?

    Penny Mordaunt

    I will continue.

    The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has not appreciated the damage that has been done in these circumstances. The Speaker’s role in this is integral, including in avoiding—

    Pete Wishart

    Will the Leader of the House give way?

    Penny Mordaunt

    No, I will not give way. I am going to have my say.

    The Speaker’s role in this is integral, including in avoiding frivolous complaints. It is important that his role is respected.

    Pete Wishart

    Will the Leader of the House give way?

    Penny Mordaunt

    No.

    Correspondence on such matters must remain confidential and, in this place, we all suffer if that does not happen. As Mr Speaker noted, it is not for him to determine whether a contempt has been committed. I therefore support the motion and the need for the Committee of Privileges to thoroughly and correctly investigate any potential breach. I think we all regret where we are today. I am sorry the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire did not make a full and frank apology, and I support the motion.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2022 Statement on John Nicolson

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2022 Statement on John Nicolson

    The statement made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Labour MP for Bristol West, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    The upholding of conventions is essential to the smooth running of this House and to the foundation of political order in this country. “Erskine May” is clear—there is a search function, and I checked this morning—about the procedure for raising a complaint about a breach of privilege. The rules are there to find for a Member who seeks to raise such a complaint. “Erskine May” says that Members need the permission of the Speaker and must request it in writing. There is a long-standing convention that, when Members write to the Speaker, they do so on the basis that the correspondence in both directions will remain confidential. This is especially the case on matters of privilege. Paragraph 15.32, footnote 6, is explicit:

    “It is not the practice for such letters to be made public… Members should not challenge the Speaker’s decision in the House.”

    As Members of this House we all hold parliamentary privilege, but that comes with responsibility. We have a duty not to misuse it, and we have a duty to respect the Chair’s rulings. Our conduct must live up to the high expectations that the public should have a right to expect of us.

    I therefore believe the conduct of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) warrants an investigation by the Committee of Privileges, as requested by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), so I will support the motion today, and I urge others to do so.

  • Deidre Brock – 2022 Comments on John Nicolson

    Deidre Brock – 2022 Comments on John Nicolson

    The comments made by Deidre Brock, the SNP parliamentary spokesperson at Westminster, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    It is extremely unfortunate that matters have come to this, but I understand the conventions of the House that brought us here. The Scottish National party respects the need for a transparent and open process.

    The Leader of the House has previously spoken of the importance of parliamentary modernisation, and of how the House operates unlike any normal administrative centre in the public or private sector, and I agree with her. The procedures of the Houses of Parliament need updating, and this situation perhaps provides us with an example of where some reform could take place.

    I am confident, having spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), that he was completely unaware of the conventions of the House at the heart of this issue. He sought clarity on proper procedure and was caught out. He has already spoken at length, with his customary eloquence, outlining his position and how there was no malicious intent.

    In closing, I repeat that the SNP respects the need for transparency and openness.

  • John Nicolson – 2022 Statement on Privilege Debate Concerning His Behaviour

    John Nicolson – 2022 Statement on Privilege Debate Concerning His Behaviour

    The statement made by John Nicolson, the SNP MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    At the heart of this issue, I believe, is accountability. What should happen to Members who break the rules, and how open should our procedures be? What should the public be allowed to know?

    Let me say at the outset that I am very sorry that the Speaker feels that my revealing his decision not to have a debate in the House about our Committee’s report has put him in a bad light with the public. That was never my intention. My intention—[Interruption.] If Members allow me to develop my speech, they will hear my points. My intention was merely to let the public know what had been decided.

    I am accused of breaking a rule myself, and I would like to explain the circumstances to the House. I am a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We held a hearing with the then Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), at which she claimed that a Channel 4 reality series in which she had appeared some years ago had used actors pretending to be members of the public. She claimed that they had confessed this to her. A member of the production team who lived on the estate concerned—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed my opening remarks, but it is quite clear that this is not about the actions of any other Member. It is not about what happened in the Committee with any other right hon. Member. It is about the motion before us.

    John Nicolson

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me say that there was considerable press interest in our Committee’s work, and I decided that we should send a copy of the report to the Speaker. I thought that time might be set aside for a debate about referring it to the Committee of Privileges. However, the Speaker wrote back to me saying that he did not believe the case met the threshold for a debate. I recorded a video summarising the Speaker’s decision, and I tweeted it. I offered no comment about the Speaker, nor did I criticise him. There was considerable public interest, and I soon discovered that the Speaker was angry. He believed that I should not have reported his decision. Last Wednesday, he told me in the House that he thought I had not summarised him accurately, and that I should not have reported him at all. It was not my intention in any way to summarise him inaccurately.

    Before I was elected to the House, I was a journalist—a reporter for “Newsnight”, among other current affairs shows. I believe in open democracy, but I also believe in maintaining agreed confidentiality. It did not cross my mind that revealing the Speaker’s decision on this was a breach of privilege. After all, what was I to say if journalists asked me whether I had written to the Speaker? Was I to say, “Yes”? If they asked me, “Has the Speaker responded? Has the Speaker given a ruling?”, was I then to say, “I’m afraid I can’t tell you”? I did not consider that I had broken any confidence or betrayed any trust. I did not imagine that the Speaker’s decision on a matter of importance to my constituents could not be revealed. Moreover, I believe that I summarised the Speaker fairly, but I am in the unfortunate position of finding myself unable to prove that, because in order to do so I would have to release the Speaker’s letter to me in its entirety—something which, as we have established, the Speaker does not believe I should do.

    There has been a suggestion that I printed only half the letter. That is not the case. The Speaker’s letter to me came as a letter through the post. There was no need for me to print it, nor did I publish it, nor did I show its contents to the camera, nor did I leak it to others. I was very open in the way I talked about it, which I hope shows that I did not think I was behaving improperly. There has also been some suggestion that the Select Committee did not wish to see this matter proceed to a privileges debate. That, too, is not the case. The Committee decided not to refer the Member concerned because she was no longer a Cabinet Minister, but the Committee left open the option for others to do so. Indeed, some Committee members expected that to happen. I agreed with the findings of the Committee, which were unanimous and cross-party.

    The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who wrote to the Speaker asking for this debate, has just spoken again. I have never met the right hon. Member or spoken to him here, although I may have interviewed him in the past. He is not a member of the Select Committee, and he has previously championed free speech.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. We really are not here to discuss the matters surrounding the Committee itself. The hon. Gentleman needs to stick to what is in the motion.

    John Nicolson

    May I just say this, Madam Deputy Speaker? I spoke to the Chair and the Clerk of the Committee today. I gave them exactly the words that I intended to use, and obtained their permission to use the words that I have just repeated.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. It is up to me to make the final decision. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Those people do not give the hon. Gentleman permission; I do.

    John Nicolson

    The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden spoke last Wednesday following the Speaker’s remarks from the Chair, and he laid into me with some vigour, using what appeared to be a pre-prepared speech. He was especially exercised by what he saw as my breach of parliamentary etiquette. It is worth me pointing out in that context that he did not contact me to inform me that he planned to speak about me, which as we all know is the convention. I was not afforded the opportunity to reply last Wednesday, but before moving on to other business the Speaker concluded:

    “I am going to leave it there for today”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 292.]

    I therefore assumed that the matter had been laid to rest. However, the right hon. Member then took to Twitter to pursue his criticism of me, complete with a video of his speech.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to be criticising the right hon. Gentleman who moved the motion. He can speak to the motion, not outside it, so can we just stick to the matter in hand?

    John Nicolson

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) rose—

    John Nicolson

    I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

    Simon Hoare

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who on a personal level I like. Can I just give him some friendly advice? Put the spade down.

    John Nicolson

    People are watching this, and I am pleased that they are. I think they will draw conclusions, having heard both sides of the argument.

    Pete Wishart

    I have been in this House for 21 years, and as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been a member of the House of Commons Commission for something like four years. I had absolutely no idea that we could not reveal that we had had correspondence with the Speaker or summarise what it was. How on earth was my hon. Friend supposed to know that, when I, with my 21 years in this House and my service on the Commission, did not know it? All of this seems to be, at best, some sort of means for retribution and, at worst, institutional bullying, because that is what it is starting to feel like right now.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. Interventions can be made, but they should be brief. I would also remind hon. and right hon. Members that if the House decides to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, these sorts of arguments can be made there. This debate is on the simple matter of the motion. Other arguments can be made to the Committee if the House decides it wants the matter to go to the Committee.

    John Nicolson

    I know that the Speaker has been on the receiving end of often unpleasant comments from the public since I revealed his decision. That was never my intention. I did not use his name, I did not link to him and I did not post contacts for him. I am very sorry that a pile-on has ensued. I have friends across the House, and I believe in vigorous but fair debate. I have no time for abusive behaviour; I do not engage in it and I deplore it.

    I am advised that I breached a parliamentary rule by referring to the Speaker’s letter, but as I have explained, I did not knowingly do so. I would never reveal a confidence. I did not believe that the Speaker’s decision on a parliamentary matter was a secret. Indeed—this is perhaps not a matter for today—should there not be a distinction between correspondence containing confidences and correspondence on policy decisions? Has every Member who has revealed a Speaker’s decision by letter found themselves the subject of a parliamentary privilege debate, as I am today? Although this convention appears to exist, is it not the very antithesis of open democracy? Many Members on both sides of the House have told me privately that they did not know this rule existed.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    I should declare an interest as another Member who appeared in the very same reality show that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee discussed. He has not apologised to the Speaker. Does he not think that, having betrayed what was marked as private correspondence, which clearly and rightly aggrieved the Speaker, if he had given an apology at the time when it was raised by the Chair last week, he would not be in this position now? Why did he not do that? Would he not like to bring back at least some decorum by apologising profusely to the Speaker and the House now for the offence he has caused?

    John Nicolson

    The hon. Gentleman says the letter was marked “private”. I do not know how he knows what was on the letter. I have shown the letter to absolutely nobody. But since he challenges me, the letter was not marked “private”. If it had been, I would not have talked about it. It is a core belief of people in my former profession that we hold confidences and that we will go to prison rather than reveal our sources. The letter was not marked “private”. It was about a matter of policy on whether or not a debate could be held, and I did not think that it was confidential.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    The hon. Member has said that he was aware that the Speaker had become very angry. As the Speaker serves all of us, and as this is all about decorum, is it not time that he apologised to the Speaker? Maybe that would resolve a lot of things.

    John Nicolson

    I want to answer that question honestly. I am slightly torn because, on the one hand, I am deeply sorry that the Speaker is upset. Those who know me will know that I do not ever conduct politics in a way that aims to be offensive, and I am truly sorry that the Speaker is upset. I am truly sorry that I have upset the Speaker, but it would be disingenuous of me to say that I knowingly revealed this. I could not have been more open by going on camera and discussing this. I clearly was not trying to hide it. If people in my profession—my former profession and this profession—want to pass things into the public domain in a sleekit or surreptitious way, they give them to journalists. I did not do that. I stood up and talked about the letter, not revealing its contents in detail but summarising it.

    This place often seems hard to understand for the general public, and its procedures can appear opaque. I suspect that most people will find it curious that the Member who misled the Select Committee was subject to no consequences but the Member who revealed that—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. The hon. Gentleman absolutely needs to withdraw that remark.

    John Nicolson

    I withdraw that remark. I, however, am subject to the current debate. I note that, over the years, these debates have been confined to people who have committed or been accused of committing some of the most egregious offences, but I have yet to meet a Member who thinks this falls into that category.

    I want to conclude by saying again that it was never my intention to insult the Speaker. I do not know him well but we have only ever had friendly exchanges when meeting. I bear him absolutely no ill will. I deplore any and all online abuse that he has suffered. Nobody, I imagine, is enjoying this debate—least of all me. I find interpersonal conflict stressful and unpleasant. I hope the House concludes that there was no malicious intent in anything that I did, and I apologise to the Speaker for breaching a House rule, but given the all-party nature of the Committee report I sought no party political advantage and I hope that Members here today will seek no party political advantage. My only motivation was to do what I always try to do, and that is to engage with the debate and to communicate my work here with constituents and with journalists as openly and fairly as I can.

  • David Davis – 2022 Statement on John Nicolson

    David Davis – 2022 Statement on John Nicolson

    The statement made by David Davis, the Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That the matter of the actions and subsequent conduct of the hon Member for Ochil and South Perthshire in relation to correspondence from the Speaker on a matter of privilege be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

    I have been advised by the Clerks that this is a very narrow motion, so I will stick strictly and exclusively to the matter at hand. Before I come to the substantive motion, however, I want to say something to those members of the public who may think that this is an arcane or even abstruse issue.

    Ever since Speaker Lenthall told King Charles I that

    “I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me,”

    the Speaker has been the spokesman, champion and protector of the Members and institutions of this place, as well as being the impartial arbiter of our proceedings. If hon. Members think that that is just a piece of ancient history, they ought to consider more recent times. Mr Speaker’s more recent predecessors have been criticised on issues of impartiality or for failing to protect Members: for example, Mr Speaker Martin’s failure to protect my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was highly controversial at the time and very important.

    As for upholding the rights of Back Benchers and Opposition Members, we need only look at Mr Speaker’s fierce criticism of the Government during the statement yesterday, when he upheld our rights. It is therefore vital for Members to protect the integrity, impartiality and apolitical nature of the Speaker’s office. That point is clearly recognised in “Erskine May”—hardly a polemical document—at paragraph 15.14, which states that

    “reflections on the character of the Speaker or accusations of partiality in the discharge of their duties”

    are a punishable offence. “Erskine May” also recognises that a Member’s behaviour and conduct outside this House count towards that.

    I turn to the substantive motion. Following an appearance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) before the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport while she was Secretary of State, the Committee opened an investigation into several claims that she made, but ultimately it decided against any action. The Committee as a whole published a special report—[Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “He’s turned up.”] Oh, right.

    The Committee as a whole published a special report, which said:

    “we may have sought a referral to the Privileges Committee but, as her claims have not inhibited the work of the Committee and she no longer has a position of power over the future of Channel 4, we are, instead, publishing this Report to enable the House, and its Members, to draw their own conclusions.”

    It is crucial in this matter to remember that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) sits on that Committee. He did not ask for a Division before the report was published; he did not vote against it; he did not publish a dissenting opinion on that report. Instead, he wrote to Mr Speaker asking him to give precedence to matters reported on by the Committee, even though the Committee itself was not seeking such precedence. As would be expected, Mr Speaker did the usual thing, and—in his own words—decided to

    “respect the Committee’s assessment of the situation.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 291.]

    After Mr Speaker had replied to the hon. Member privately, as is the convention with privilege issues, the hon. Member took to Twitter. He brandished a copy of Mr Speaker’s letter in his video. He broke all the conventions on the privacy of Speakers’ correspondence on privilege, and disclosed a partial and partisan account of Mr Speaker’s letter. He said on Twitter:

    “He’s considered my letter, but he’s decided to take no further action.”

    In doing so, he implied that it was Mr Speaker’s unfettered decision not to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. Nowhere in his filmed statement did he tell his followers that Mr Speaker was following normal procedure by accepting the will of the DCMS Committee—I imagine that is why Mr Speaker described his action last week as giving a “partial and biased account” of the correspondence—and nowhere in his statement did he tell his followers that it was he himself who sat on that Committee and signed off the conclusions.

    All of us in this House have a duty to uphold its rules and institutions, but by knowingly breaching the confidentiality of the Speaker’s correspondence, the hon. Member has done the opposite. This is a clear breach of our rules. The proper response after Mr Speaker’s censure of him for his behaviour last week was for the hon. Member to accept the seriousness of his actions, apologise properly to the House, and delete the offending tweets. If he had done so, I imagine that would have been the end of the matter; indeed, I would not have made my point of order on the day. However, he failed to apologise, and instead compounded his misdemeanour. Taking to Twitter once again, he claimed that he

    “offered no apology as there was no misrepresentation.”

    Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Davis

    He claimed that he

    “didn’t ‘release’ the Speaker’s letter. I summarised it entirely fairly.”

    That is untrue. He misled the country by deliberately withholding the way in which this decision had been arrived at and his part in it. He also retweeted an account that was directly critical of Mr Speaker, saying that Mr Speaker’s statement had been merely “Ermine pursuing theatrics” and that Mr Speaker was placing his

    “integrity above that of parliament”.

    Pete Wishart

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Davis

    The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire had again compounded his misdemeanour by deliberately attempting to undermine the impartiality and integrity of the Speaker’s office. It is the role of the Speaker of this House to protect Members and stand up for its Back Benchers, and it is the Members’ duty, on our part, to uphold the dignity of the Speaker’s office.

    Pete Wishart

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Davis

    I do not believe any of this conduct to be appropriate for a Member of this House. However, that is not for me to judge, as a single, ordinary Member, which is why this is not a motion to condemn, but a motion to pass the matter to the Privileges Committee of the House of Commons.

  • Victoria Prentis – 2022 Statement on the Serious Fraud Office’s Handling of the Unaoil Case

    Victoria Prentis – 2022 Statement on the Serious Fraud Office’s Handling of the Unaoil Case

    The statement made by Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Unaoil case, R v. Akle & Anor, in December 2021, the then Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), commissioned Sir David Calvert-Smith to conduct an independent review into the Serious Fraud Office’s handling of the case.

    On 21 July 2022, in a written ministerial statement, the then Attorney General provided Parliament with the findings of Sir David’s review and a response to his recommendations. This also included a commitment to update Parliament on progress in delivering these recommendations in both November 2022 and February 2023. This WMS provides the first of these updates.

    Sir David’s review made 11 recommendations, which were accepted. These cover a range of matters, including record keeping and case assurance, compliance with policies, and resourcing. While many of the changes recommended by Sir David can be—and have been—made quickly, it will necessarily take longer to fully embed his recommendations and assess the effectiveness of changes made.

    Within this context, I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made in delivering Sir David’s recommendations. For nine of the 11 recommendations, the SFO has already implemented specific measures or steps to ensure their effective delivery. For the two remaining recommendations, work has commenced to make changes in response to Sir David’s proposals.

    A detailed update on progress will be published on www.gov.uk today and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

    I would also like to take this opportunity to notify Parliament of a change to the timing of the second update on Sir David’s recommendations. This was originally planned for February 2023 but will now be provided by no later than May 2023. This is to allow the findings of an inspection of the SFO by His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate to be considered as part of the update. The inspection, a report of which will be published in April 2023, is examining case progression in the SFO with reference to relevant findings in Sir David’s review.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on Home Office Not Providing Copies of Statements to the Opposition

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on Home Office Not Providing Copies of Statements to the Opposition

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 28 November 2022.

    Before I call the Minister, I want to express my disappointment that copies of the statement were not given to the Opposition in good time. The rules of the House make it clear that copies should be supplied at least 45 minutes beforehand: 10 minutes before we start is not acceptable. I am also disappointed that the shadow Secretary of State will have to try to respond to a statement of which copies have not been provided in good time.

    There are no officials in the Box at present, but may I say, through the Minister, that officials need to recognise the rules of the House? If they do not understand the rules, we can help them with a training programme, but I say to the Minister now that I do not want to be disappointed again on behalf of the Opposition. I only received my copy of the statement 10 minutes ago as well, but that does not matter; I am more worried about the Opposition.